If passed, legislation currently before the U.S. Congress would forbid businesses from supporting boycotts of Israel or other states “friendly” to the U.S. Two weeks ago, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced its opposition to the bill on the grounds that it violates freedom of speech. Eugene Kontorovich disagrees:

The ACLU’s claims are as weak as they are dramatic. . . . Current law [already] prohibits U.S. entities from participating in or cooperating with international boycotts organized by foreign countries. These measures, first adopted in 1977, were explicitly aimed at the Arab states’ boycott of Israel, but their language is far broader, not mentioning any particular countries. . . . [This] law has been upheld against First Amendment challenges in the years after its passage and has not raised any constitutional concerns in the nearly four decades since. . . . If the anti-boycott measures are unconstitutional, as the ACLU argues, it would mean that most foreign-sanctions laws are unconstitutional.

The distinction [on which these laws rest] between expression and commercial conduct is crucial to the constitutionality of civil-rights acts. In the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected. However, if a Ku Klux Klan member places his constitutionally protected expression of racial hatred within the context of a commercial transaction—for example, by publishing a “For Sale” notice that says that he will not sell his house to Jews or African-Americans—it loses its constitutional protection. The Fair Housing Act forbids publishing such discriminatory notices, and few doubt the constitutionality of the Fair Housing Act. . . .

It is little wonder, then, that opponents of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act feel the need to exaggerate what the act does. It only makes clear that the old and existing anti-boycott law applies not just to the Arab League boycott but also to newer foreign anti-Israel boycotts, such as those being organized by the UN Human Rights Council. . . .

The real question is why the ACLU is now attacking the basic constitutional understandings that underpin decades of American foreign policy and civil-rights regulation—but confining its new First Amendment standard to laws relating to Israel.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.